Sure thing, as I say your initial point stands.

For the sake of discussion only I ask “what is the point of achieving insight if it is too difficult to communicate it to others?”

If it understands you without you even trying then regardless of whether you try to communicate well or not you will never know if you have done a good or poor job of communicating. This is my point.

Your unpopular opinion that you enjoy it more is not in question, and you are free to abandon your fellow mortals if that’s what you want to do. However, in my opinion, this can only lead to a further deterioration in skills that you already admit are not as developed as you would like.

I would also gently remind you that you are one of us, and subject to the same imperfections. Keeping this in mind can help smooth your interactions with others.

“Someone disagreeing with you, or attempting to show you something you might not know or have seen”

So this is another example of how you are doing the same things you avoid communicating with humans over. You have selected one part of my statement to misunderstand and selectively ignored the point.

We absolutely are talking about what you wanted to talk about. Your first statement to me was asking what I based my assessment that you were training yourself to be a poor communicator on. Since then we have stuck to that topic, but you haven’t really addressed the central point that a machine that adapts to things that hinder communication with humans will inevitably train you not to correct or address those hindrances.

This isn’t me disagreeing with you, it is me pointing out something you might not have considered. However you have framed this whole discussion as a case of you being misunderstood. That really isn’t the case.

Regardless of why the bot is able to adapt to vagueness (or other communication problems), the fact that it can discourages you from overcoming those problems.

Someone diagreeing withyou, or attempting to show you some other thing you might not have thought of or seen for yourself, is not always a misunderstanding. You need to entertain the possibility that sometimes you are wrong, unaware of something, or simply misunderstanding the other person yourself.

You say yourself that you use the vaguest descriptions when talking to the bot and that it fills in the blanks for you. This is not a good way to practice speaking with human beings.

The fact that you assumed I was talking about grammar is indicative of the problem. You clearly dislike others assuming you are talking about something you are not talking about, yet you do it yourself. That’s because misunderstandings are normal and learning to deal with them is an essential part of good communication.

It carries the emotions and personal biases of the source material It was trained on.

It sounds like you are training yourself to be a poor communicator, abandoning any effort to become more understandable to actual humans.

“the weapons it’s using against its Anglophone linguistic minority”

Bill 101 and the nothwistanding clause that allows it are not new things. If Ontario or Manitoba were going to use that precedent to limit francophones ability to work in French in Ontario they would probably have done that by now, not that Ontario or Manitoba have ever needed any encouragement to push for the assimilation of these people.

If by weapons (such ridiculous hyperbole) you mean that Quebec is going to spend less on subsidizing foreign students in Anglo Universities, I feel like the anti Indian sentiment in Anglo Canada is going to push them in that direcion already.

Quebec is not responsible if the the rest of Canada chooses to pretend that the status of English is somehow equivalent to French in this country and institute English protection laws. In fact I would argue that is the right of any province, regardless of how unnecessary it would be, and no business of ours.

People are usually pleased to see my bacon double chub

What responsibility is it of Quebec’s to police how other provinces and the federal government treat non quebecois?

Generational wealth is anti meritocratic and should be abolished

Ask the Rohingya

Why We’re Capitalizing Bajor

The Times has changed its style on the term’s usage to better reflect a shared cultural identity. Here’s what led to that decision…

Zappa was no hippy

IE regulatory capture and soothing bullshit?

I love the way the two principle evils of DS9 are both motivated by a deep conviction that they have been treated unfairly.

Thus is a holdover from half remembered lessons on Plato I guess. Socrates is contrasted with the rhetoricians as seeking Truth, a noumenal thing beyond us that we discover (or recall as Socrates would put it). The rhetoricians representative Gorgias has his argument famously summed up as “man is the measure of all things”, that is to say that nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so.

Rhetoricians famously taught people how to convince others of their point of view, essentially modern debate technique. Socrates undermined this practice by pointing out that the skills employed (tone of voice, rhythm, eloquence) had nothing to do with determining truth.

With this argument in mind we can see why “rhetoric” is now used as a shorthand for emotional appeals, or style over substance. Rhetoric is what you rely on when you cannot make a structured and logical argument, while in theory the truth is the truth even if delivered in a dull monotone of limited vocabulary.

Imma blow a gasket

The cats take valuable couch space

Remember when they AId Harris as a demon and she the result looked hot as fuck

Step 1: do not poop for three days straight